I’ve previously written about how Pope Francis had single-handedly destroyed Catholicism, and now it’s happened AGAIN.
I’m sure you’ve heard about Pope Francis’ recent encyclical Laudato Si’, in which the Holy Father commands that every Catholic, upon pain of excommunication, MUST believe that climate change/global warming is a scientific reality, caused entirely by Catholics, and that only the Democrats can save us from ourselves.
Except that he didn’t, despite what most non-Catholic news sources would have you believe.
You would think people would learn by now that when any non-Catholic media source, right-wing or left-wing, starts a story, “Pope Francis Declared…” or “Pope Francis said…” whatever follows is going to be a misrepresentation of epic proportion.
This happened with Pope Benedict as well. Remember Pope Benedict’s Nazi Past? Or when Pope Benedict said Catholics can use condoms? Or when Pope Benedict insulted Jews with an anti-Semitic Prayer? Or when Pope Benedict angered Muslims by saying Mohammed was evil and inhuman? Or when Pope Benedict attacked capitalism and all[ied] with Occupy Wall Street when he published his encyclical Caritas in Veritate? For crying out loud, the media even proclaimed far and wide that the Benedict XVI’s red shoes were Prada (apparently wearing fancy shoes in order to make up for his “lack of charisma,” according to the Associated Press). At least some organizations later had the grace to admit that it wasn’t true (but not until after his resignation).
If social media had been as prevalent during Pope St. John Paul II’s tenure as it was/is during Benedict XVI and Francis’ pontificates, he would have gotten much the same treatment. As it was, John Paul II’s release of Dominus Iesus in 2000 spawned dozens of newspaper headlines (one of which I remember seeing in my college newspaper) proclaiming that “the Pope says non-Catholics aren’t really Christians!” And many bishops and Church theologians issued documents clarifying what the Pope had actually said, contrary to media reports.
I’m not old enough to remember Paul VI’s pontificate, but those who are tell me that there were many news stories about how the Pope was poised to change Catholic teaching on contraception. Even priests had started to tell their congregants to go ahead and use it, it was just a matter of time. If social media had existed back then I’m sure there would have been Facebook memes and Twitter statuses galore about how Paul VI was going to revolutionize Church teaching by giving the papal nod to contraception. Except they were wrong.
I repeat, once again: The media does not exist to tell the truth – it exists to make money. Juicy headlines sell newspapers and garner millions of website hits, which generate revenue. “Pope Reiterates 2,000-year-old Teaching of the Church” doesn’t make money; “Pope Declares that All Atheists Go to Heaven” does. Truth has nothing to do with it, and this type of misrepresentation for personal gain is something that’s been happening as long as the papacy has existed.
Choose your sources of information carefully. Always read the source document for whatever remarks are in question, because they likely contain important context that the media completely ignores.
For example, if someone tells you that the Pope said Catholics shouldn’t breed like rabbits, read his actual comments, in which he simply reiterated the Church’s teaching about responsible parenthood. The media wanted you to think that the Pope was endorsing contraception and abortion, which he most emphatically was not (in fact he condemned both, strongly, and has done so throughout his pontificate.)
If someone tells you that the Pope said Catholics had to believe in global warming, go and look at paragraph 188 of Laudato Si’, in which the Pope specifically says,
There are certain environmental issues where it is not easy to achieve a broad consensus. Here I would state once more that the Church does not presume to settle scientific questions or to replace politics. But I am concerned to encourage an honest and open debate so that particular interests or ideologies will not prejudice the common good.
If the White House tries to downplay the fact that Laudato Si’ condemned abortion, go look at paragraph 120, where Pope Francis said:
Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion. How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties? “If personal and social sensitivity towards the acceptance of the new life is lost, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away”.
If some news sources or Facebook memes (right-wing ones in particular) claim that the Pope said that people who own guns aren’t Christian, read the actual transcript of his words, and take into account their context and the content of the entire document, not just one or two lines blown out of proportion by the media. As blogger Jennifer Fitz writes,
Pope Francis doesn’t obey this law [of communication]. It’s as if he thinks it’s perfectly acceptable to take multiple sentences, multiple paragraphs, sometimes even a whole encyclical, to lay out his ideas in succession, each part contributing to the whole. He expects you to listen, perhaps ask yourself questions as you listen, but to wait until the idea is fully presented. Only when he’s done talking do you have the whole story; until then, he’s not done.
Sadly, even some publications that identify as Catholic can’t be trusted. For example, the National “Catholic” Reporter (which still calls itself Catholic despite the fact it was told not to by the bishop) opined that Pope Francis was wrong not to embrace contraception in Laudato Si’.
On the other side of the dissenting coin, the online publication The Remnant tells us that we are free to ignore the Holy Father’s teaching if it doesn’t fit our preconceived biases. I can’t figure out how they don’t see that their attitude is exactly the same as the one expressed in the National “Catholic” Reporter – let’s just ignore all the teachings we don’t like, and embrace the ones we do! It’s cafeteria Catholicism at its finest. Both of them would do well to heed the words in Lumen Gentium:
This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.
And since I’m sure the folks at The Remnant dislike Vatican II as much as they dislike Pope Francis, I’ll share with them the words of Pope St. Pius X:
Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.
What to do if you hear a “Pope Francis said that…” and want to know if it’s true? First find the original source. This can be problematic given the current speed of the news cycle, where stories alleging what Pope Francis said can travel across the globe in minutes, while the official transcript of his remarks don’t appear until hours or even days later (and sometimes it takes even longer to find an English translation). But don’t assume anything is true until you can read the Pope’s remarks in context from their original source, usually at Vatican.va or sometimes at Zenit.org.
One helpful resource is the National Catholic Register (which, unlike the Reporter, actually cares about promulgating authentic Catholic teaching).
Longtime apologist and blogger Jimmy Akin is especially adept at parsing a document down to its essential points and refuting the media falsehoods (his initial article on Laudato Si’ is particularly good). The apostolate he works for, Catholic Answers, provides solid Catholic teaching and reporting.
And, of course, you can always check Catholic Stand for our take on issues (but I’m biased in that regard).
Read the original source to find out what the Pope actually said as opposed to what the media claimed he said. Then sigh in relief, secure in the knowledge that the Pope has not destroyed Catholicism, despite the media reports.
158 thoughts on “Pope Francis Has Single-Handedly Destroyed Catholicism AGAIN”
The only problem is that Francis is not a Pope. He was invalidly elected and is the Biblical False Prophet of these end days.
There is some truth in what the writer of this article says. Pope Francis is however his worst enemy. He speaks extemporaneously without much thought to the consequences of his words. I miss St. JP 11 and Benedict.
There is something a little endearing about watching some traditionalist and neoconservative and libertarian Catholics wrestle with the fact that they are dissenting from papal teaching. They are a bit clumsy at it. Perhaps, here at the Catholic Worker, we could offer a symposium or something.
It always amazes me that people have time to post this many comments. Maybe they need to get a job an come home smelling like the sheep.
Lots of sick hateful comments too. God help us.
Had the Pope come from the Dominican tradition rather that the Jesuit, I’m sure he would have been able to word his encyclical a bit more artfully and leave some wiggle room for when the science part proves in error in about 200 years.
Have you read Crux lately? It’s hard to tell the difference between Vatican press releases and the Boston Globe.
The pope declared his own religion a disgrace to society about 2 years ago for they way they have chastised the LGBT. Thank for less than nothing supposed Faith Based disciples.
There you go again, making stuff up. You can’t give us a link because there is no link. This is a perfect example of what this excellent article is all about. Pope Francis said that we can’t judge the fate of anyone’s soul but we can judge their actions. We are to love and treat gays and lesbians with dignity, as well as everyone else. Homosexual acts, however, are disordered and sinful. As are straight people’s adultery and fornication.
A number of gays and lesbians are in the Catholic Church now trying to live chastely. There is a Catholic organization called Courage that helps them with this. We welcome any person to the Church whether they are in a state of sin or not. We all are sinners. The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints.
The Supposed “Faith Based” people and politicians are Ruining God for Everybody and he isn’t even here to defend himself. The mere fact that you think Christianity or heterosexuality is better than anything else is Fact that you are a bigot. The only beings going to heaven are the repressed and the people that stood up for them: Animals, blacks, women, latinos, LGBT etc. All of you that are stomping on minorities & abusing animals should be ashamed of the devil in you.
http://adam4d.com/whos-the-bigot/
Exactly. & they are bigots who were well and fine when they have the free civil rights, but give it to the repressed, GOD FORBID!!! The devil loves you all though, good job.
Did you actually look at the link? LOL.
of course. it is completely true.
Yes, I agree the link is true! Thank you for agreeing that people opposed to SSM are not bigots.
Just curious, does the child in the womb qualify for your repressed category? Does standing up for the defenseless unborn child count toward getting into heaven?
Psychiatrist Dr. Gregory Popcak says, “The reason heterosexual marriage has enjoyed pride-of-place in society for 4000 years is not because of the bigotry or prejudice…[but because it] yielded several observable benefits that were necessary for the creation of an orderly society. Let’s look at five.
1. Marriage unites children to their mother and father far better than any other institution.
2. Children raised by married mothers and fathers fare significantly better.
3. No other relationship-type protects the financial and social security of women like marriage.
4. Marriage socializes men. In addition to the fact that married men are exponentially more willing to claim and raise their own children, married men are significantly less likely to commit violent crime than unmarried men.
5. Marriage secures sustainable fertility rates.
“… Gay marriage does not grant any benefits to society and in fact, undermines several of these social benefits. For example:
~Gay marriage makes it discriminatory to say that ANY child has a right to a mother and father. This is the most serious problem.
~Same-Sex marriage does not provide the same level of security for the partners or children raised in those households.
~Same-Sex marriage does not socialize partners to the same degree. The incidence of intimate partner violence is higher for both lesbian and gay couples than it is for married, heterosexual couples.
Homosexual persons do not deserve to be treated with scorn, disrespect, or bigotry. They are persons deserving of our love and respect just like anyone else.”
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithonthecouch/2015/06/gay-marriage-getting-the-conversation-right-is-more-important-than-ever/
no. you don’t even know gay parents. ANYONE that has to pay almost 100K per child is obviously and factually going to be a better parent & more attentive, engaging and available compared to anyone that can at anytime accidentally have a child they don’t want, didnt plan, cant afford and dont have time for because they have so many others.
This further harms children by turning them into a commodity that can be bought and sold with them having no rights or voice in the matter. And further takes away their rights to know their natural mother and father.
Where are you getting your amazing new “factually” information? Please give us the link, or are you just making it up? You obviously didn’t read the link. It says, “Children born to a married mother and father do better on all academic, social, psychological, spiritual, and interpersonal measures. All the data supports this. Again, any social movement that undermines this fact does violence to the dignity of children.
Same-Sex marriage does not provide the same level of security for the partners or children raised in those households. Homosexual relationships do not appear to be as stable as heterosexual relationships even where gay marriage is legal. Therefore, children raised in homosexual households are, statistically, at great financial and social risk.
The incidence of intimate partner violence is higher for both lesbian and gay couples than it is for married, heterosexual couples. This increases the risk of instability for children in gay and lesbian households.”
Why has nobody raised the hygiene link in homosexual/sodomy relationships? is it too disgusting?
Possibly so. The National LGBT Cancer Network says:
“Current estimates are that HIV negative MSMs (males having sex with males) are 20 times more likely to be diagnosed with anal cancer. Their rate is about 40 cases per 100,000. HIV-positive MSMs are up to 40 times more likely to be diagnosed with the disease, resulting in a rate of 80 anal cancer cases per 100,000 people…
“In MSMs, HPV (Human Papillomavirus) is transmitted through both protected and unprotected anal intercourse and skin-to-skin contact. Among heterosexual women, the vast majority of infections are cleared naturally by the body within a few years, usually by age 30, but this appears to be less true for MSM, where the infections are often still present in later adulthood.”
http://www.cancer-network.org/cancer_information/gay_men_and_cancer/anal_cancer_hiv_and_gay_men.php
Al Kresta, author of Dangers to the Faith, and radio show host says, “They are 8000 times more likely to have rectal cancer.”
https://avemariaradio.net/resources/archives/?media=all-types&catslug=kresta-in-the-afternoon&month=06&yr=2015 June 29 (Hour 1).
Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons M.D. says, “[T]he couple may not necessarily be physically healthy. Dutch research has found that most new HIV infections in Amsterdam occurred among homosexual men who were in steady relationships. The researcher concluded that: ‘Prevention measures should address risky behavior, especially with steady partners, and the promotion of HIV testing.’
“Research shows that same sex unions suffer a significantly higher prevalence of domestic abuse, depression, substance-abuse disorders, and sexually transmitted diseases.” http://www.womenofgrace.com/blog/?p=13252#sthash.QwYlpes4.dpuf
WOMEN OF GRACE
THE FIGHT FOR MARRIAGE, pt. 1
President of Catholics for the Common Good Mary Jo Anderson joins
Johnnette Benkovic to discuss defending the covenant of marriage. Part 1-5 Monday 7/13 through Friday 7/17 see schedule for times http://www.ewtn.com/multimedia/schedules.asp?weeknum=1&date=07/13/2015&sat=DOME&alerted=1
Bringing up a child to recognize immorality as normal is to raise them to risk, if not embrace, spiritual death – like parent, like child. Spiritual death is far more permanent than physical death and is therefore even more serious a crime. Since the Lord holds us responsible for encouraging others in sin, this means an even more unfavorable sentence for the deviant parent who leads that soul to its death.
how is society systemically in order when 50% if not more of the society are living in squalor compared to the ones who enjoyed the benefits of the Constitution while almost ignoring the others until they ask for the same free inherent benefits then they are killed, cast away, told to go live on an island by themselves?
You just changed the meaning of the word ‘bigot’. Any more gibberish to offer?
interesting thoughts…
JoAnna, let me say further, I don’t intend to respond to any more comments from you until you apologize for saying I have insulted Pope Francis.
personally, if the earth is warming, i believe that would be a good thing because it would provide more land for cultivation which in turn would provide more food for God’s children.
on whether or not man can control the earth’s climate, i hope not but am rather agnostic on that issue. one reason i am agnostic is because it seems far-fetched to believe man knows enough about meteorology and climatology to produce a desired climate 50 and 100 years from now but does not know enough to predict the weather next week. one reason i hope man cannot control the earth’s climate is because some of those men would use that power to control and hurt other men. in fact, the best way to eliminate mankind would be to create and uncontrollable change to the earth’s climate.
it may be part of God’s design for the earth, as the human population increases, to become warmer with more CO2 in the atmosphere because that is a better environment for mankind to flourish. without question, a warmer earth is better than an ice age when it comes to making a sustainable environment for human beings.
who are u people? and to the author respectfully grow up!
I’m 34 – I think I’ve grown up, thanks. 🙂
Don’t ever grow up, JoAnna. We like you just the way you are. But stop saying the Pope single handedly destroyed the Church. You are scaring my children.
Then please teach your children the fine art of sarcasm for comic effect. 🙂
Time to turn off The Freemasonic Indifferentism Pope Francis show and practice Catholicism…
So you think Pope St. Pius X was wrong?
No, he was not wrong. But Francis was not pope then.
So he’s not wrong, but he’s wrong? Please explain. Either Pope St. Pius X meant for what he said to apply to all popes, or he was wrong.
He was not wrong, but Pope Francis lacks clarity and affirmation of Church teachings. In this Pope Francis is wrong. This does not invalidate what Pius X said.
I suggest you read this pasted extract here from teh Vatican website. The whole document can be found in this link: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_20140610_sensus-fidei_en.html#1._The_sensus_fidei_and_the_development_of_Christian_doctrine_and_practice
2. The sensus fidei and the magisterium
a) The magisterium listens to the sensus fidelium
74. In matters of faith the baptised cannot be passive. They have received the Spirit and are endowed as members of the body of the Lord with gifts and charisms ‘for the renewal and building up of the Church’,[89] so the magisterium has to be attentive to the sensus fidelium, the living voice of the people of God. Not only do they have the right to be heard, but their reaction to what is proposed as belonging to the faith of the Apostles must be taken very seriously, because it is by the Church as a whole that the apostolic faith is borne in the power of the Spirit. The magisterium does not have sole responsibility for it. The magisterium should therefore refer to the sense of faith of the Church as a whole. The sensus fidelium can be an important factor in the development of doctrine, and it follows that the magisterium needs means by which to consult the faithful.
One more thing, when Pope Pius X wrote this speech that you quoted, he was addressing the clergy who he saw was dissenting from him, he was then fighting modernism. I read the document at the Vatican website, available here only in Italian :
http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/it/speeches/documents/hf_p-x_spe_19121118_unione-apostolica.html
Doesn’t make any sense, especially considering the Pope Francis’ teachings are not in any way opposed to the teachings of the church/the magisterium.
I think the Holy Father is tired of practicing Catholicism. He is ready to do Catholicism and perhaps we should follow his lead.
“I’m sure you’ve heard about Pope Francis’ recent encyclical Laudato Si’, in which the Holy Father commands that every Catholic, upon pain of excommunication, MUST believe that climate change/global warming is a scientific reality, caused entirely by Catholics, and that only the Democrats can save us from ourselves.”
That is saying a bit much isn’t it? The wording of the encyclical does not appear to attach an excommunication with the current state of affairs. I would be willing to be corrected on this point though.
Caused entirely by Catholics? Only Democrats can save us? I’m a traddie Catholic, but no wonder we get such a bad rap. Rhetorical jabs, snarky attitudes, and ad hominem attacks. Quote the actual encyclical and give a reasoned response. To come out of the gate with that paragraph makes me realize why people have a hard time taking trads seriously.
pssst, that was sarcasm. If you’d read the next line, that would have been apparent. “Except that he didn’t, despite what most non-Catholic news sources would have you believe.”
I went back and read your article again with fresh eyes. Whoops! I completely overlooked that very next statement. I must have been reading your article in the middle of other angry rant articles which clouded my judgment. My apologies and I retract my earlier comment ☺️.
Let me see……….Islam is murdering Christians by the thousands…….Ireland and America have chosen sodomy and Satan over God and the Pope is writing about an unproven scientific theory of global warming. That is like worrying about your lawn as your house is burning down with your family inside.
Satan is laughing………………..
did you miss the part in Laudato Si’ where the Pope condemned same-sex unions? I’m assuming so.
I venture to say that, given the seriousness of the decision of the SC, giving the status of “human rights” to SSM, it alone deserves a very clear statement from the Church. The CDF should issue a statement reminding all Catholics of the 2003 directives of that same CDF concerning homosexual unions. There is a difference between legalizing a disorderly behavior and actually turning it into a human right. The seriousness of the situation requires a very clear statement from the Church, be it from the CDF or from the Pope himself. It would be better coming from Pope Francis so that Catholics can relax and stop trying to figure out what this pope said by this or that statement. Yes, I have read Laudato Si, I find many good things in it, I also follow his catechesis on the family, but I also see and hear from him in his homilies, the improvised comments that very often cause so much confusion.As a Catholic I know that I ought to respect the pope, to venerate the teachings of our apostolical Church, that notwithstanding the sins of her children, lay and clergy alike, is always holy because of her divine Head, Our Lord Jesus Christ. I pray for the pope and his intentions, asking God that all happen for His greater glory, but I am no idolater and the Church needs to hear clear and unquestionable doctrine from the pope. Cheers.
One more comment: it seems to me that rather than unifying the Catholic faithful, the Pope’s Encyclical has caused division amongst faithful Catholics. Was this an unintended consequence, much like the unintended consequences of policies designed to lessen the “carbon footprint”?
No one would disagree that the secular press “rewrites” according to their bias and agenda. I have read a couple of articles linked from BIG PULPIT wherein the author attempts to explain away the Holy Father’s statements and intentions on the climate warming paragraph’s. The author’s, including the author of this article appear to be doing the same as the secular media. I have read and listened to both scientific debates regarding Climate Change/Global Warning, find the science that disputes the warming evidence to be credible, and disagree with the Holy Father’s statement re: this particular issue in the Encyclical, while appreciating His wisdom on everything else. I do not feel guilt over this, I do think that perhaps the Holy Father may not have had the ALL the scientific evidence presented to him in a completely objective manner. Regardless, the Holy Father’s Encyclical really doesn’t warrant much explanation, it is a beautiful document with much to ponder and reflect on. Catholic’s may disagree with the Holy Father, we are required to ascend to and believe in the teachings of the Magisterium.
Your comment is reasoned and apt, Isabella. The problem is to disentangle the false pseudo-science put forth in the Encyclical from the good moral teachings. Perhaps the alcohol to remove the stain on the Encyclical are comments such as yours.
Humanae Vitae caused division too. Do you think Paul VI should not have written it?
Gee JoAnna, I thought I could leave Catholic Stand in peace, but you keep harassing me. To answer your question, which I assume was not meant rhetorically. I do think that Pope Paul VI should have written it.
And to further enlighten you here is a quote from another blog to which I will be turning my attention, The Biologos Forum, http://discourse.biologos.org,
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
where the injunction for participants is to engage in “gracious dialog”.
Um, if you want to leave, then please leave. I’m not stopping you. However, if it would help, I can ask Stacy to block you from the site if you are unable to stop commenting.
it’s unfortunate that the Pope’s comments about climate change are the most talked about in the media. On a positive note, it’s a good stepping stone for talking to liberals about the entire document.
While the LBGT Activists and the US Supreme Court were busy to catastrophically redefine marriage the “Holy Father” looked away from the cultural battles and was concerned about the weather. He should be concerned about the spiritual climate instead. But as an old Jesuit fox he thinks he can fool the world by playing the popularity card. He is a completely wordly person, unworthy of being a leader of the Church.
did you miss the part in Laudato Si’ where Pope Francis condemned same-sex unions? Or the fact that the entire Church as been fighting against SSM for decades?
Did ya all skip the bible verses that teach how to get into heaven? Love One Another. Love your Neighbor. Teach others how to love everyone. Don’t judge. Let God do that. 10 commandments, etc. Do unto others. Such simple peaceful EZ loving rules Godly rules & virtues…. Life is a test, how do you treat minorities and the repressed? all you supposed Faith based Christians, you are failing miserably. It is not too late to shut your hate hole. See you in heaven maybe, when our hell on earth is done???
Did you miss the teaching of Christ that states homosexual acts are intrinsically evil?
Father Roger Calmel, O.P. (1914-75)
The trouble is, we’re not ” simple Christian(s) ” anymore. We’re much more sophisticated
Christians lead by the same Holy Spirit that guides you.
,
So who do you think is right? This guy or Pope St. Pius X? Personally I’d rather believe the pope.
We are living in another age of Arianism.
Arianism is a heresy and is the view that Jesus was a created being with divine attributes, but was not divine in and of Himself. What does that have to do with Francis’s encyclical on humans’ responsibility to take care of the place we find ourselves living?
We are in the age of The Modernist Heresy…
You are in the age of about 13, I presume.
Speak for yourself.
The media is Satan’s Facebook and the idiot’s god. Sad, so very sad.
Below is my comment on another post about the Encyclical in this blog, of which I assume you will also disapprove:
Thanks for a fine article [“One Simple Way to Follow Laudato Si”]–you’ve managed to find something good in the Encyclical and that’s to be commended. However, most of us have been following energy conservation and recycling practices for some years now, and we did not need an Encyclical to push us to do this.
I have read the Encyclical (which I don’t think most of the people who have either praised or criticized it have done). While one cannot disagree with the principles of stewardship and charity set forth in the Encyclical, it is, in my opinion, indelibly marred by His Holiness’s willingness to accept uncritically the Anthropic Global Warming thesis. Like many absent-minded scientists and academics I occasionally put an uncapped pen into my shirt pocket. Although the resulting ink-stain is small, the shirt is ruined.
In previous posts here and in my blog I put forth my ideas of when the Church should meddle in science.
(See “Galileo Redux: when should the Church meddle in science” http://rationalcatholic.blogsp…}
so I’m not going to enlarge on that topic in this comment. The Church should have views on applications of SETTLED SCIENCE that impinge on moral issues, but it should not make judgments about science where it has neither knowledge nor discernment. For example, the Church can judge (as it has) that gene therapy and modification is permissible if it is used to cure a disease, but it is not warranted to get super-babies. Nor should the Church judge which of the 17 (or more) interpretations of quantum mechanics is correct. It has not (correctly) even pronounced on the “Big Bang” hypothesis, even though that supports the Church’s position on Creatio ex Nihilo. What Pope Francis should have done is to call in a Devil’s Advocate, an AGW skeptic, to see what science really has to say about this issue.
I won’t, in this comment, attempt to rebut the points made by Pope Francis concerning global warming. That has been done most excellently in a number of blog posts, amongst which I’ll cite those by William (Matt) Briggs, in his blog http://wmbriggs.com
Perhaps the Pope has read the Lord’s Messages? Perhaps this ability to listen is why the Lord reveals His knowledge to the humble? This choice of the Lord seems logical given that the egotistical do not hear very well – there is too much competition/noise coming from the ego. Similarly, one cannot teach a know-it-all.
what a distortion of the facts;
there is no excommunication involved with any Encyclical and Catholics are not bound to accept the mere opinions of the pope on science theory especially Global Warming as a result of man’s interventions.
The author if truly a Catholic simply does not know what the Catholic Church teaches. This article is nothing but dribble.
I suggest you read the whole article, or, failing that, even the very next sentence.
Unfortunately, although there were some general injunctions in the Encyclical that are laudatory (pun intended), Pope Francis’s flat-out assertion that man-made global warming cause glacial and polar cap melting, oceans to rise, and is a catastrophe in the making, makes the whole enterprise dubious in my opinion. (And I have read the whole encyclical).
Here’s the analogy that describes my feelings about the encyclical. Like many absent-minded scientists I occasionally put an uncapped pen into my shirt pocket. The resulting stain, even though it’s small, ruins the whole shirt beyond repair.
For someone who has read the encyclical, it’s curious that you make the claim that you do, since Pope Francis actually didn’t say that. In fact, the word “catastrophe” only appears twice, and neither in the context you mention.
I’m going to quote from the Jimmy Akin article I linked above
***(#9) Concerning the idea that the climate is getting warmer in general, the pope writes:
A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system. In recent decades this warming has been accompanied by a constant rise in the sea level and, it would appear, by an increase of extreme weather events, even if a scientifically determinable cause cannot be assigned to each particular phenomenon. Humanity is called to recognize the need for changes of lifestyle, production and consumption, in order to combat this warming or at least the human causes which produce or aggravate it [LS 23].
The pope thus sees there as being “a very solid scientific consensus” regarding the idea of warming itself.
He is more cautious on the question of whether it is due to human activity. In the passage already quoted he refers to human responsibility to address “at least the human causes which produce or aggravate it”—suggesting that there may be other causes as well. He then goes on to name some:
It is true that there are other factors (such as volcanic activity, variations in the earth’s orbit and axis, the solar cycle), yet a number of scientific studies indicate that most global warming in recent decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides and others) released mainly as a result of human activity. . . . Another determining factor has been an increase in changed uses of the soil, principally deforestation for agricultural purposes [ibid.].
In contrast to the “very solid scientific consensus” he points to for the fact of warming, he says only that “a number of scientific studies” indicate that “most” recent warming is due to greenhouse gasses, and he also cites deforestation as a contributing cause.***
Again, as stated in paragraph 188:
“There are certain environmental issues where it is not easy to achieve a broad consensus. Here I would state once more that the Church does not presume to settle scientific questions or to replace politics. But I am concerned to encourage an honest and open debate so that particular interests or ideologies will not prejudice the common good.”
So you are certainly free to think Pope Francis’ scientific beliefs re: global warming are “dubious” – he even says as much! But I’m sorry to hear you consider Pope Francis a “stain” on the Church. I’d encourage you to read the quote from Pope St. Pius X in the article.
First, Joanna, I’m going to require an apology from you for saying that I”consider Pope Francis a stain on the Church”. If you read my comments carefully you’ll see that I started saying that there were some injunctions that were praiseworthy (that’s what laudatory means), I drew a analogy of his comments on global warming, that there is a scientific consensus–not true– and his comments on glaciers melting and sea levels rising as not true to the ink stain on my shirt. To make it a horsy’s and ducky’s explanation for you, the encyclical, not Pope Francis corresponds to the shirt and his comments on anthropic global warming is the stain.
By the way, one point that hasn’t been made in most comments I’ve read is that green efforts to lessen the carbon footprint have harmed the poor more than helped them. Read Andrew Montford’s “The Unintended Consequences of Climate Change Policy”. The economist/statistician Bjorn Lomberg believes that AGW is real, but that economic resources to improve the lot of Third World poor would be better devoted to improving water supplies, agricultural methods, health resources than to diminishing the carbon footprint.
As I said, I expect an apology; if not, it seems clear that comments on Catholic Stand are not enjoined to be gracious and I will disassociate myself from this enterprise.
I apologize for misreading your comments; it seemed to me that you were saying the shirt was the Church & Pope Francis was the stain. I am glad that is not what you meant.
As for your other comments – great news! You are not required to subscribe to Pope Francis’ scientific beliefs re: climate change. But you should consider the teachings re: faith and morals that the encyclical contains.
The problem is that the Pope says some very good things on faith and morals. But these are buried in such a long string of climate craziness that has nothing to do with faith and morals that one can never really get to them
And, you owe the Remnant guy an apology too, since all he disputed was the Pope’s climate nonsense.
Um, the headline of the article tells Catholics to ignore the ENTIRE encyclical. Not acceptable. And the article also contains disrespect toward the Pope. Also unacceptable.
Ask Jimmy where the pope got this “very solid scientific consensus” information from and see if he tells you its from the Communist-run organization called Potsdam. Or ask Jimmy why he thinks the pope ought to rely on an atheist, pro-population controller for advice.
Hm, I’m not seeing any evidence to back up your claims.
You believe Jimmy is an expert. Ask him who these scientists are.
Why should I ask him when I have you? Can you provide any evidence to back up your claims?
there is ample proof that CO2 is beneficial, not harmful, and is not a cause of global warming but is in fact caused by global warming. For the pope to place this ludicrous assertion in an encyclical(along with his vapid attacks on market economies) and his proposal for a global authority to address environmental issues, all of that is far beyond a stain on a shirt. He is a goof ball.
You may disagree with Pope Francis on the science. He said as much. But you may not insult and denigrate him (see quotes from Lumen Gentium and Pope St. Pius X).
He has insulted my church and the papacy. I will not deify such a buffoon. He is only a mortally frail human being whose ego has run away with him. Get realistic. I do not need your permission to resist evil acts.
You must have been looking in the mirror!
Good line. lmao
I do see Jimmy as an expert especially in comparison to persons like yourself that make false claims in forums and then is passed on as truth. Jimmy spends a lot of time reading Pope Francis’s original documents and speeches and is happy to share with others. You might subscribe to his newsletter and become informed within your Church and not in the secular world.
Here’s some evidence JoAnna, William Briggs post on the pantheist scientist who advises Pope Francis, see:
http://wmbriggs.com/page/2/
and links contained therein.
Who is William Briggs and why is he a reliable source?
JoAnna, if you had read his blog you would note that he is 1) a faithful Catholic, 2) a knowledgeable statistician and 3) knows about the statistics and science of climatology. And if you had read the post you would find out some of the information you say you would like to have.
And has he been appointed by Christ to teach in His name?
JoAnna, we’re talking about what is correct science. Pope Francis was not appointed by Christ to teach about climate science any more than Pope in charge of the trials of Galileo was appointed to teach about astronomy. I’ll quote from a post by Patrick Madrid (you do know who he is don’t you?) referring to the trial of Galileo:
“(1) He cannot speak as a private theologian but in his official capacity as vicar of Christ and head of the Church; (2) He must officially define a doctrine relating to faith or morals (unfortunately, the pope is not infallible when it comes to science, politics, weather, and the outcome of sporting events); and (3) The pronouncement must not be directed only to a single individual or particular group of people, but it must be promulgated for the benefit of the entire Church”
see
http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/common-misconceptions/the-papacy-and-galileo.html
Thank God, I don’t have to believe your opinion on what is required for me as a Catholic to believe.
It is not my opinion. It is the Church’s. I’m just reiterating it.
If you don’t want to share Pope Francis’ scientific views, fine! He specifically said that is not a problem. But you can’t ignore the entire encyclical, nor its teachings on faith and morals. Nor can you insult and disrespect the Holy Father.
Cite where I have insulted or disrespected Pope Francis. And if you’ll note in my initial response, I said there was much good in the Encyclical OTHER than Pope Francis’s pronouncements on global warming. And this where I leave you and Catholic Stand.
It’s coming through quite clearly in your disrespectful attitude.
I repeat, you have not cited anything I said that was disrespectful or insulting.
You are a polemicist, not a teacher of Catholic doctrine and dogma.
Name-calling is the last resort of the defeated.
You are entirely correct, JoAnna. You’ve won. I’m leaving Catholic Stand, thanks to your insults.
and one more comment. I said in a previous comment that you were not interested in seeking truth, but rather only to win an argument. That seems to be confirmed. I will pray for you.
Likewise.
As a matter of interest, the Lord in various recent Messages (that I would have to research to give you chapter and verse) has said that we are destroying the Earth and threatening the entire cosmos; His advise to us is to ‘simplify’ our lifestyles. Sorry, I did not read His Messages to memorize chapter and verse concerning every single topic – you will have to do your own research.
By the way JoAnna, there are a number of famous scientists who do not believe the AGW thesis: Frederick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences; Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT, Freeman Dyson, Institute of Advanced Studies, Princeton, and for others.. see, for example,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
Okay…? How is that relevant?
You asked why William Briggs is a reliable source. I presume you want to assess the validity of the claim that there is not, contrary to the Encyclical, a scientific consensus on global warming. This reference will show you that there is not.
And it is my opinion now that you are uneducable.. As I’ve pointed out in a previous post (it doesn’t pay to argue on the internet), It seems to me you’re more interest in winning an argument than learning.
If you don’t want to believe there is a scientific consensus on global warming, fine. That is your prerogative. It’s an issue on which Catholics are free to hold conflicting views. But you may not ignore the Pope’s teachings on faith and morals, nor may you promote disrespect towards the Holy Father.
OK, another apology is in order JoAnna for saying I have shown disrespect to Pope Francis or have ignored his teaching on faith and morals.
I should apologize for telling the truth? Why?
Is consensus ever complete?
You asked why William Briggs is a reliable source. I presume you want to assess the validity of the claim that there is not, contrary to the Encyclical, a scientific consensus on global warming. This reference will show you that there is not.
And it is my opinion now that you are uneducable.. As I’ve pointed out in a previous post (it doesn’t pay to argue on the internet), some people’s minds can’t be reached by rational argument… what the Church calls invincible ignorance.
Great numbers of people also believed that the earth was flat. So? ‘Tot homines, tot sententiae’: ‘so many men, so many opinions’ – this was a Roman idiom thousands of years ago. Not too much changes, it seems.
It is very clear that he relied on a rather extreme, atheist scientist named Schnell huber for much of the supposed science basis. of this encyclal
You’ve provided no proof of that. And even if true, please read about the genetic fallacy.
What has telling the truth about our planet have to do with an atheist or a person of religion. Anyone who travels, sees or read the news, will know the dramatic changes over the world are unfolding. Facts and reality have nothing to do with religion. It is a slippery slope to condemn some scientist because he has no religion. Integrity is NOT dependent on religion but upon the quality of the human. Otherwise, all religious wars would be justified. That sure worked well when churches burned women at the stake, killing in the crusades when the comment was made: “Well, God will know his own.”
It would be morally wrong for the Pope say nothing so destructive businesses could rape the land, spoil the water and foul our nest all the name of greed while we watch death by pollution, animals and plants disappearing from destruction all in the pursuit of more money for the rich and spread the misery to the remainder who cannot escape the destruction and pollution.
Wait a minute. First you say that Pope Francis is not asking us to believe in global warming. Then you bash the Remnant guy who says he doesn’t believe what the Pope says about global warming and call him a cafeteria Catholic
Which is it?
If you read the WHOLE encyclical, you see that Pope Francis says literally hundreds of untrue or exaggerated things. Then, he includes one or two paragraphs out of his 184 pages mitigating the damage. You seized on these few paragraphs as if they were the main message of the encyclical. They are not.
If you read the WHOLE encyclical you can see that Pope Francis is not dubious about global warming at all – he has swallowed the koolaid of the environmentalist movement whole hog. Just as a partial illustration, here are some of the completely untrue, or overly exaggerated things he says. All of the following paragraphs are quotes, and all of them are just plain wrong, or over-hyped hysteria:
“161. Doomsday predictions can no longer be met with irony or disdain.” ( He believes that the earth is about to be destroyed by mankind’s use of fossil fuels. This is crazy, wild, unsupported nuttiness.)
“The pace of consumption, waste and environmental change has so stretched the planet’s capacity that our contemporary lifestyle, unsustainable as it is, can only precipitate catastrophes” (But in actual fact, we are making the planet cleaner every year. In the developed world, we have so many environmental regulations. Everything is getting better, not worse. It is beneath a Pope to spread baseless hysteria)
“Humanity is called to recognize the need for changes of lifestyle, production and consumption, in order to combat this warming or at least the human causes which produce or aggravate it.” (Humanity is called to combat something that occurs naturally? Only if you buy the global warming thesis do we have to do anything)
“The problem is aggravated by a model of development based on the intensive use of fossil fuels, which is at the heart of the worldwide energy system”. (no, only if you buy into the global warming scare theories, do we have to limit fossil fuel use. In fact, they are now discovering that the deep oceanic ridges produce infinitely more CO2 each year than man could ever hope to put out. )
“The melting in the polar ice caps and in high altitude plains can lead to the dangerous release of methane gas, while the decomposition of frozen organic material can further increase the emission of carbon dioxide”.(No, these are vastly overhyped, sketchy theories that they have recently had to scale back. He is clinging to the alarmism of certain people)
“Carbon dioxide pollution increases the acidification of the oceans and compromises the marine food chain”.(Nonsense. As soon as they found out that no global warming had occurred for the last 18 years, they came up with the ocean acidification scare – but rain water naturally falls into the ocean every day. It “acidifies” the ocean far more than atmospheric CO2 – should we ban the rain from falling in the ocean because it is causing acidification?)
“If present trends continue, this century may well witness extraordinary climate change and an unprecedented destruction of ecosystems, with serious consequences for all of us”.(But we know present trends never continue. We know there are cycles. Always have been. Always will be)
“Some studies warn that an acute water shortage may occur within a few decades unless urgent action is taken”. (And studies undertaken by sane people who aren’t trying to drive a global warming scare show the opposite. So what if “some” studies show?
“A rise in the sea level, for example, can create extremely serious situations, if we consider that a quarter of the world’s population lives on the coast or nearby, and that the majority of our megacities are situated in coastal areas” (The seas have been rising for the last ten thousand years. It rises the width of a nickel each year. We can manage this slow, steady, centuries-long process. We have been managing it for the last ten thousand years)
“Climate change is a global problem with grave implications: environmental, social, economic, political and for the distribution of goods. It represents one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day.”(No, it isn’t – as you note, lying about things is good for newspapers. Creating hysteria is good to make people read. Popes should not try yo whip up needless hysteria)
“There has been a tragic rise in the number of migrants seeking to flee from the growing poverty caused by environmental degradation”.( No, in fact, they claimed there would be 50 million climate refugees by now, this prediction has failed. The scientists that do all this predicting are always wrong.)
“There is an urgent need to develop policies so that, in the next few years, the emission of carbon dioxide and other highly polluting gases can be drastically reduced, for example, substituting for fossil fuels and developing sources of renewable energy.” (But we have had 40 years of people trying to produce these alternative energy sources, and they always fail, because they are not practical.If, as you claim, the Pope is dubious about the global warming claims, why is it urgent that we do away with fossil fuels.?)
“We all know that it is not possible to sustain the present level of consumption in developed countries and wealthier sectors of society, where the habit of wasting and discarding has reached unprecedented levels.” (When some one begins something with “We all know” it is because they don’t want to provide support for a statement that cannot be supported)
“The exploitation of the planet has already exceeded acceptable limits and we still have not solved the problem of poverty.” HYPE
Large cities dependent on significant supplies of water have experienced periods of shortage (Really? when and where? I haven’t heard about it – except for California, which goes through this every 30 years or so. But once again, the Pope is trying to drive hysteria. )
Detergents and chemical products, commonly used in many places of the world, continue to pour into our rivers, lakes and seas.(HYPE)
Nope, please read the article. I’m saying we may disagree with the Pope re: the science (Pope Francis says as much). But we may not disregard the encyclical in its entirety and/or insult the Holy Father, especially re: his teachings on faith and morals. Both of which the Remnant folks are doing.
Who is the Pope do decide there is, or is not, a “solid scientific consensus”?
Science is today simply a tool of politicians. Much of what is being done is not true real science being done:
LiturgicalNotes. Blogspot.com
“ “We should let ourselves be guided by the
Science”, cry the politicians. For as long as it suits them.”
25
June 2015 “Science Says,” does it?
The Irish Times is a very Grauniad sort of newspaper in its editorial biases, so it must be a pure coincidence that, on the very day when the Holy Father’s Encyclical on the Environment was published, its long-time Science Correspondent, Professor Emeritus William Reville (a biochemist and a very accessible writer) of University College Cork (go there … a lovely quadrangle worthy of Oxford … fantastic Harry Clarke glass in the Chapel …
they do their academic ceremonies in Latin …) dropped rather a bomb-shell. Half of the research work published in the Natural Sciences is, he says, so dubious as not to be fit for purpose. He cites writers including a former
editor of the New England Journal of Medicine (“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published …”) and speakers at a meeting (Chatham House Rules) organised by the
Academy of Medical Sciences, the Medical Research Council, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, and the Wellcome Trust.
The Editor-in-chief of the Lancet attended that meeting, and wrote:
“The case against Science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, Science has taken a turn towards darkness … The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred
theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy
competition to win a place in a select few jornals. Our love of ‘significance’ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairytale … Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent, endpoints that foster reductive metrics, such as high-impact publication … and individual scientists, including their most senior leaders, do little to alter a research culture that occasionally veers close to misconduct.”
It would be thoroughly puerile to try to use all this to mount some sort of gleeful attack upon the Natural Sciences. It would also leave one deservedly
wide open to a gigantic Tu quoque. Only yesterday, I was reading a large book in the field of Papyrology, written by somebody who had needed to
reexamine a large number of published papyri for his own research purposes. He repeatedly discovered that the published accounts were inaccurate. His
realisation generated a large, originally unintended, part of his book, his Appendix 3, listing thousands of examples of error … which he had discovered entirely obiter! I made a similar discovery a decade ago when
working on late medieval records in Devon. You can’t rely on published accounts; you just have to go back to the manuscript originals. And take them with a pinch of salt! Don’t totally believe anybody! And as for what is laughably called “New Testament Studies”,
two thirds of it is rubbish written by people who are blithely unaware that, if you start with a theory which is, let us say, roughly .75 probable, and put on
top of it another theory which is roughly .75 probable, you’re already down to something like .56 probable, and one more similar stage takes you down to well under
.5 probable; in other words, your brilliant cumulative theory in its three humanly highly plausible and attractive stages, accompanied by all your terribly persuasive rhetoric, is more likely to be false than it is to be true.
However, there is something slightly different about the Natural Sciences: (1) there are some poor, simple, credulous souls out there who believe that ‘scientists’ are invariably austere and logical high-minded individuals, servants of a stern mistress, devoted to following the objective evidence wherever it may inexorably lead them; and: (2) a belief exists that ‘Science’ is very important and that ‘Science’ equals Truth and should be
believed and followed by governments and individuals. “We should let ourselves be guided by the Science”, cry the politicians. For as long as it suits them.
‘Scientists’ are, quite simply, human beings just
like the rest of us. And ‘Science’ is one academic discipline, often imperfectly pursued, among many other such. That’s all I’m saying. Nothing more.
Reville concludes: “That great cathedral of scientific progress, the peer-reviewed scientific literature, is beginning to crumble.”
That’s a fine essay Guy; it’s a shame it’s hidden in a comment. You might read a similar article by William Briggs on dubious peer-reviewed work, “Bad Science”
http://wmbriggs.com/?s=bad+science
Dear Duehm-Thank you; great site. guy
Who are you to say he can’t?
Man-made global warming, climate change whatever name you choose or whatever you want to blame this on…is all caused by sin and only man sins, nature can’t sin. Think that through very carefully…and maybe you’ll get it.
You are wrong. With a little research and effort you can repair a seemingly small flaw that is , in fact, destruction in its entirety . By taking that shirt by the pocket and soaking it in alcohol the stain will break down and disappear . You may have to change the alcohol a few times, it may take several hours, or more, but isn’t something that has worked so well for so long worth the effort?
Margaret, my analogy is apt. And I’ve tried alcohol–it doesn’t work. It just spreads the stain over the whole shirt.
For ‘many absent-minded scientists’ uncapped ego often smudges logic.
National [not] Catholic [not] Reporter [not]; or for short NNCNRN. Or memory aid: NonConcern for Truth.
Run by militant homosexual(s) agenda.. which explains it all.
Please provide substantiation for the above statement.
Just read it, it becomes clear very quickly
I always read it…and it’s not biased so please substantiate what you say. That whiich is asserted without evidence can be easily dismissed without evidence. How about proof!
Are you guys talking about the National Catholic Reporter based in Kansas City that supports sodomy, contraception, abortion and is a very effective mouth piece for the culture of death?
Golly gee, yes, Maggie….now prove your assertion …. it ain’t so just because you say so! And please define sodomy for me as it has many applications to men and women…..
You’re redefining sodomy? I’d like to know how you redefine sodomy to make it square with Christianity. Please explain to everyone the sodomy that isn’t really sodomy. Sheesh. Enough of your verbal contortion and obfuscation.
Dear Vegetable…..
sod·om·y
ˈsädəmē/
noun
sexual intercourse involving anal or oral copulation
Does this not apply to both heterosexual and homosexual couples? Nothing new under the sun….
Selective dictionary usage?
Word Origin and History for sodomy
n.c.1300, “unnatural sexual relations,” such as those imputed to the inhabitants of Biblical Sodom, especially between persons of the same sex but also with beasts, from Old French sodomie, from Late Latin peccatum Sodomiticum “anal sex,” literally “the sin of Sodom,” from Latin Sodoma. In Middle English also synne Sodomyke (early 14c.).
sodomy [(sod-uh-mee)]
Sexual intercourse that is not the union of the genital organs of a man and a woman. The term is most frequently applied to anal intercourse between two men or to sexual relations between people and animals. (See pederast.)
“most frequently applied” is not always, is it?
You’re aware that the Reporter and Register are different publications, right?
Of course, the NC Reporter is the Kansas City “liberal” and the NC Register is the “conservative”. Both tell their side of events…
Phil-It appears Eye of the Tiber agrees with you:
“It
is our duty as a reputable Catholic news source to cover all stories
that pertain to and concern the average Catholic in the pews. Striving
to be both fair and balanced, we are sometimes forced to cover stories
about religious orders and Catholic leaders that we may be fond of; such
is the nature of our business. But in so doing, Eye of the Tiber has
become a leading source for Catholic satire
to the astute, and legitimate Catholic news to the obtuse. We are proud
to have recently been nominated for Best Catholic News Satire,
narrowly losing out to the National Catholic Reporter, proving thus
that, more trusted Catholic news sources aside, Eye of the Tiber is your
most trusted Catholic news source.”
Guy, sarcasm and satire not proof …. it just sarcasm and satire.
The Holy Father said it. There’s your proof
Was he speaking “ex cathedra”. That’s not proof.
He (Pope Francis) also said: in Evangelli Gaudiam “The other is the self-absorbed promethean neopelagianism of those who ultimately trust only in their own powers and feel superior to others because they observe certain rules or remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past. A supposed soundness of doctrine or discipline leads instead to a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism, whereby instead of evangelizing, one analyzes and classifies others, and instead of opening the door to grace, one exhausts his or her energies in inspecting and verifying. In neither case is one really concerned about Jesus Christ or others. These are manifestations of an anthropocentric immanentism. It is impossible to think that a genuine evangelizing thrust could emerge from these adulterated forms of Christianity. (#94)
Perhaps it would be good to reflect on this Benedetti….also said by the Pope
Thanks. I haven’t got around to reading that document, but will have to soon, Those are extraordinary words. He is a great teacher.
You should also add Crux to the extremely pro gay supposedly Catholic outlets that in reality seem to push for gay marriage at every turn, and give dissenters of the Church a primary place.